Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also confirms that the research has followed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts who were not members of the research team read a draft report of the research. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. Reviewers do not have conflicts of interest with the study.
The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve how the research team analyzed its results or reported its conclusions. Learn more about PCORI’s peer-review process here.
In response to peer review, the PI made changes including
- Providing a rationale for structuring the intervention as individual-focused rather than group-focused. The researchers added details about the empirical support for individual-focused interventions.
- Indicating that although the between-group differences in the outcome measures were statistically significant, the practical significance of the differences was quite small.
- Describing their sensitivity analyses to determine the impact of key assumptions. As a test of the robustness of the trial results, the investigators asked whether varying the levels of intervention exposure, frequency of use, and perceived helpfulness of specific intervention strategies led to different conclusions about intervention effectiveness.
- Adding a rationale for including clinicians who were not already experiencing burnout by stating that the intervention could help prevent future burnout, and that there were no empirically validated cut-off points for low-level burnout. The researchers also noted that some patients who had little or no connection to participating clinicians were recruited because it was not possible to know patients’ involvement with specific clinicians until after study enrollment.
- Discussing the possibility that contamination, where control clinicians had access to the intervention through their interactions with intervention clinicians, contributed to small difference between groups. The researchers elaborated on this issue, but indicated that contamination was unlikely to be the cause of the results because neither study group improved.
Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.